Dear All,

Thanks to all of those who sent letters to Mayor Frank Coccho (Corning, NY) asking him to forward them to the  Corning City councilors. The mayor did that and more. He was up to 2:30 pm on August 8 emailing every person who wrote to him and in some cases speaking with them on the phone - including Jeanie Ryan in Brisbane, Australia!

At the beginning of Wednesday’s meeting the mayor spoke about the emails he received on this - 41 from over 20 states and three countries. He explained that the vast majority of the letters were very courteous and he expressed pleasure that many had thanked him personally for his efforts to ensure that both sides of this controversy were given equal treatment. He continued that approach into the evening meeting when he allowed people to give up their 3 minutes time (or any fraction of it) to the two leading speakers on each side: Dr. Jay Kumar from the NY State Department of Health and myself. 8 people gave up their time to me and I ended up speaking for 27 minutes. Kumar had about the same time. He spoke first using a power point program.

Dr. Kumar was a panel member of the NRC review. He gave the same spin to this that we have heard from the ADA, CDC and the AWWA, namely that their findings only applied to “high” levels of fluoride in the water (i.e. above 4 ppm) and not to the ‘low” levels of fluoride added to water in artificial fluoridation schemes.  He made no attempt to distinguish between the concentration of fluoride and the dose that people receive, which, of course, depends on how much water they drink together with the fluoride they get from a multitude of other sources. He did not refer to the important exposure analysis contained in chapter 2 of the NRC report.

I was surprised with how blatantly selective he was when citing the literature used in the NRC report. He claimed that the Basin research was the only work that had found a relationship between osteosarcoma in young men and fluoridation; both Hoover (1991) and Cohn (1992) also found this. He cited the work of Li et al. (2001) in support of the notion that at 1 ppm there were lower bone fracture rates in a set of Chinese villages, but failed to point out that the very same study found a doubling of hip fractures at 1.5 ppm and a tripling at 4.3 ppm. In talking of osteoporosis patients given sodium fluoride tablets in an effort to reduce bone fractures, he claimed that only one study had found an increased fracture risk, in fact at least 11 studies found this (Bayley 1990; Dambacher 1986; Gerster 1983; Gutteridge 2002, 1990; Haguenauer 2000; Hedlund 1989; Inkovaara 1975; O’Duffy 1986; Orcel 1990; Schnitzler 1990). When speaking of the rarity of skeletal fluorosis in the US he focussed all his attention on the crippling phase and ignored the earlier symptoms which mimic arthritis. According to the CDC about 63 million adults suffer from some form of arthritis and yet no study has been undertaken in the US to probe a possible relationship with this complaint and fluoride exposure. Likewise when Kumar discussed dental fluorosis he focused only on the severest level. Thus he ignored moderate dental fluorosis which impacts about 2% of children living in fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997). Moderate dental fluorosis is when mottling and staining impact 100% of the tooth surfaces and costs approximately $1000 a tooth to treat.

Kumar did not mention fluoride’s impacts on thyroid function or the brain. He tried to persuade his audience that the only relevant findings in the whole NRC report was on dental fluorosis and bone fracture. He dismissed those on the panel who claimed that the NRC report was damaging to the future of water fluoridation as being “anti-fluoridationists”. In his own words, “There were three anti-fluoridationists on the panel.”

If Dr. Kumar was a private citizen promoting fluoridation perhaps he could be forgiven for his enthusiastic one-sided treatment of this subject.  But for a civil servant working for a state health department one has the right as a tax payer to expect better. As a civil servant he had the duty to present the material contained in the NRC report as objectively as he possibly could. He did not.

As soon as Kumar finished his talk, he left. He did not wait to hear my presentation.

I began by discussing three numbers: 0.006, 1 and 4. I then explained the significance of these three numbers. 0.006 ppm is the level of fluoride  in mothers milk. 1 ppm is the level of fluoride added to water in fluoridation schemes and 4 ppm is the level above which by law (the Safe Drinking Water Act) fluoride has to removed. In other words 1 ppm is “good” and 4 ppm is “bad”. Now the NRC has recommended that the 4 ppm standard be lowered. Even a 4 ppm standard is too close to 1 ppm for comfort; after it has been lowered it will be even less acceptable. I stated my belief that, if the EPA does an honest job with a health risk assessment, the new MCLG will have to be lower than 1 ppm which will mean the end of water fluoridation.

I then distributed three sets of figures, saying that a picture is worth a 1000 words. The first picture showed the CDC graph from 1999 which indicated that tooth decay was coming down in 12-year olds in the US from the 1960’s to the 1990’s. On the same graph they show the % of people drinking fluoridated water going up in the same period. Thus voila - tooth decay is coming down because the number of people drinking fluoridated has gone up. Poppycock. Look at the next set of graphs. These graphs (Chris Neurath used WHO data - available online - to create these plots) showed the tooth decay in 12 year olds coming down in 20 different countries over the same period, at an equal or greater rate than the US - and only 4 were fluoridated, 16 were not! (see http://www.FluorideAction.net/who-dmft.htm)

The second graph was produced by Carol Kopf and was based on recently published CDC figures for tooth decay in 3rd graders in the US. These were plotted against the percentage of the population in each state drinking fluoridated water. Going from 0% fluoridated to 100% there was a slight decline (maybe 9%) but there was a lot of noise on the line and it is probably not statistically significant. On the same graph Carol plotted the level of parent’s income for the third graders, again on a statewide basis. There was a remarkable parallel between the two lines (the linear regression lines were essentially parallel) - even some of the peaks and troughs in the two lines coincided (if you wish to get a copy of these graphs contact Carol Kopf at NYSCOF@aol.com). Conclusion: there is a much stronger relation between tooth decay and parental income than with fluoridation.

The third set of figures was even more remarkable - they come from NY State data recently collected by the NYS Department of Health.  Tooth decay in 3rd graders was plotted against percentage of fluoridation in each county (from 0% to 100%). The linear regression line is essentially flat, if anything there is a very slight increase in tooth decay going from 0% to 100% fluoridated, but it is probably not significant. The second graph plotted tooth decay in 3rd graders versus average income per county, and here the tooth decay showed a dramatic decline as income increased. These graphs can be obtained from Michael Connett at . As with Carol Kopf’s figures these plots are preliminary and need to be carefully checked.

I went on to explain how the mechanism of fluoride’s action is now accepted as being largely topical not systemic so that it makes as much sense to swallow fluoride as it does to swallow sun block.

I then went on to discuss some of the health concerns now familar to readers of this bulletin. I mentioned that I was the only opponent of fluoridation who testified before the NRC panel in person and that I was thrilled when nearly all the science that we have been talking about for 10 years and I presented to the panel had been included in the NRC report, but of course in much more detail.

I expressed shock that Dr. Kumar should recognize the need for more research on osteosarcoma and fluoridation without recognizing that this was tantamount to conducting an experiment on the whole population. I pointed out that human experimentaiton is strictly forbidden by the Nuremburg convention without the express permission of the patient.

I warned the council about liabilities and presented a list of questions about who would have liabilities in the event of accidents, spills and overfeeds. Who would pay the costs of treating the increased number fo children with dental fluorosis which would inevitably follow the introduction of fluoridation? I warned about the possibility of class action lawsuits on both osteosarcoma and dental fluorosis.

I expressed the view that the American people have been duped by their government on this issue, as have dentists by the ADA and doctors by the AMA. I presented the mayor with a copy of the DVD of the Bryson interview and said a few words about his book, The Fluoride Deception. I pointed out that Bryson gave evidence that fluoridation came about as a ploy by industrial polluters to detoxify the image of fluoride, in fear of the lawsuits which were anticipated from both environmental damage to farms and to the health of their own workers.

Finally, I recommended that they should ascertain the current percentage of chidlren impacted by  dental fluorosis as a way of guaging their current fluorid exposure. If one accepts the hypothesis that fluoridation fights tooth decay, then according to the early promoters of fluoridation, if there was more than 10% of children impacted by fluoride then they were already getting more than enough fluoride to fight tooth decay. They don’t need any more.

I left a copy of the “50 reasons to Oppose Fluoridation” with each councilor and asked them to get promoters to provide a written response to each of these 50 arguments. If the issue is as clear cut as promoters like to indicate then it should be very easy for them to answer these 50 reasons.

The meeting was carried by the local TV station, as well as the Star-Gazette and the Leader newspapers. Their stories are printed below.

Speaking with local citizens after the meeting I found that they would be happy to organize a meeting in town (a citizens’ workshop) some time in the future, at which I could give a longer presentation on the dangers of water fluoridation.

Thanks again for your support and interest in this little battle in Corning.

Paul Connett

———————————————————

By Larry Wilson
lwilson@stargazette.com
Star-Gazette

August 10, 2006

CORNING — The Corning City Council is expected to decide in September whether to get cost estimates for fluoridating the city’s water.

Mayor Frank Coccho said Wednesday that he will propose at the council’s September meeting that estimates be obtained to help aldermen decide the fluoridation issue.

At a two-hour public hearing Wednesday, dueling experts presented their views on decades of water fluoridation studies.

Dr. Jay Kumar, a dentist with the New York State Department of Health, presented the case for fluoridation.

Kumar, who participated in a three-year National Research Council study on fluoridation, said researchers “overwhelmingly” agree that fluoride reduces the incidence of tooth decay.

He said the only medical problems proved to be associated with fluoride are:

“The data is tentative and mixed, regarding the potential for fluoride to cause cancer, particularly of the bone,” Kumar said.

The dentist said 12 million people in New York and 162 million in the nation drink fluoridated water.

Fluoridation opponent Paul Connett, a chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University, challenged the contention that fluoride reduces tooth decay.

“To maintain that tooth decay is coming down because of fluoridated water is pure poppycock,” Connett said.

“There is no indication of a relationship between tooth decay and fluoride in New York state.”

Connett said fluoride lowers the functioning of the thyroid gland and has been linked in Chinese studies to reductions in IQ.

He also said the possible connection between fluoride and bone cancer in young boys is a serious issue.

“We’re talking about the possibility of killing young boys by giving them bone cancer,” Connett said.

He also suggested that the city could face legal liability for medical claims if it increases the amount of fluoride in its water.

Connett volunteered to return to Corning to make a more detailed presentation of the case against water fluoridation.

“Your government has duped you, the American Dental Association has duped dentists and the American Medical Association has duped doctors,” Connett said.

Letter to the editor:  http://www.stargazette.com/misc/forms/letterstoeditor.html

———————————————————–

The Corning Leader

 http://www.the-leader.com/articles/2006/08/10/news/local02.txt

News   Thursday, August 10, 2006

jsmith@the-leader.com

CORNING | The debate whether or not to fluoridate city drinking water may come to a head next month.

Aldermen will vote Sept. 4, either to instruct City Manager Mark Ryckman to study the cost of fluoridation or to abandon the project.

“I believe a no vote would kill (fluoridation),” said Mayor Frank P. Coccho, during a public hearing Wednesday night. “If the majority of the council is opposed to conducting a cost (analysis) in my mind it would be dead.”

Dr. Jay Kumar, of the New York State Department of Public Health and Paul Connett, co-founder of the Fluoride Action Network, debated the pros and cons of fluoridation during the public hearing.

Water fluoridation is the act of adding fluoride ions to drinking water in order to reduce tooth decay in the general population.

“Fluoridation is a safe and very effective way to fight tooth decay,” Kumar said.

“That’s poppycock,” Connett said.

Dr. Gary Enders, chairman of the city board of health, said fluoridation will decrease dental tooth decay.

“I think it’s for the best,” Enders said.

Alderman Hilda Lando, D-3, said she was surprised she had not received many calls from residents on the subject.

“I thought this would be a more controversial issue,” Lando said.

Alderman Anthony Sofia, R-7, was the only member of the council who said a lot of residents have spoken to him about the issue.

“Most of them are against it,” Sofia said.

Opponents of Mass fluoridation of drinking water believe levels are too high and that if it is mixed with other chemicals adverse health effects outweigh the benefits.

Fluoridation supporters believe it is a cheap and effective method to fight tooth decay.

Stella Dupree, City Editor - ext. 361, e-mail: sdupree@the-leader.com

——————-

 On TV  news36@weny.com

Many Say No to Flouridation
WENY-TV - Elmira,NY,USA

Corning City Council is a little closer to making a decision on whether to add fluoride to the city’s water supply. “It’s not a crisis. … (this page doesn’t come up from me, but the TV definitely covered the story, PC)